The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-11-03

Il COuoIlIubAouA anu tduuY~ dn0 u
court exercised its power
violation of-that law. Petitioners wei
in the courts OF the state under laws {
the state and that constitutes due pr,
cess OF law. 1t Is not material tia
this VI any court might have ruled di
ferently under the law. Turning I
the composition of the jury in the tri;
in the lower court, the AttoTne,
General said that he did not see hOI
the personnel of the jury which tried tn
petitioners in this case could be properl
submitted to the Court or considere
by 1t in the present proceeding. Thi
inquiry must be made as to the const
nationality Of the jury law of the Stat
court may have construed tina
law. The jury law of tn
State Of Illinois was not attacke
by cause on the other side in the Stat
Supreme Court. They state expressl
lreading from the proeeedings) that W
have not thought it necessary t.
attack the constitutionality o
the law because it may be Civ
en- a construction which woulG
make 1t unobjectionable. The con
tention 1 suppose was said the Attor
given to the law a construction in vic
lation of the Constitution. i believe
it to be well settled and established
that this court will not review the de,
cision OF the Supreme Court of q
state as to the construction
to be given to its OWL
Constitution and its own laws. The
jury law OF Illinois has been the COM
mon law all over the United States and
always will be. Is it possible" asked
the Attorney General, that the states
. m, hound F11 tho EodoV-oI
stitution that they cannot change their
jury laws in accordance with
the changing conditions of the
social and political life? Is it possible
that whenever law is enacted in any
state which recognizes the changed
condition of affairs-a law which is in
tended to adapt the jury system to
such changed condition-that Federal
question is raised? Then the con-
viction of any man in state court
raises Federal question, and under the
amendment that this question can be
brought to this court for review.
The Attorney-G General of Illinois will
conclude his argument for the State to-
morrow, and will be followed by Gen
eral Butler, in behalf of the petition
ers, and particularly Of Fielder and
Spies. Mr.. Grinnel will probably make
the closing argument in opposition to
the motion for a writ of error and the
Court will then take the case under adj
vtSement.
THE SECOND DAY.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2S.-When the
supreme court opened at noon, Attorney
General Hunt stated thgt he had
practically finished his argument when
court adjourned yesterday and would
,Ok 70 daxJ hut mould rviNyn uoNY
to Mr.. Grinnell.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28.-After re-
viewing briefly the ground covered by
the argument of Attorney General
Hunt yesterday, Mr.. Grinnel said that
so far as the composition of the jury
was concerned there was only one man
on it to whom any objection was raised
by the defense, and that was the man
Sanford, who was the last juror select
ed. An attempt has been ma de, he
said, to show that another juror named
Deuker had also been objected to, but
in reply to that it was only necessary
to say that at the time Juror Deuker
was accepted, the defense had the right
they had objected to him very strong
ly they might have used one of
these peremptory challenges to ex-
clude him. Mr.. Grinnell said that every
man on the jury was duly qualified
under the common law. 1t was rep
resentative American jury las good and
intelligent q jury as was ever looked
upon. 1t was in no sense class jury.
Three of the jurymen were men who
labor with their hands; one of them
was a man of foreign birth. and there
was not capitalist among them. With
regard to unreaSonableneSS and seizure
Mr.. Grinnell says he did not desire and
this was not the place to apologize for
anything he had done in the case. He
believed, however, that it had always
been regarded as proper to deprive a
criminal of the instruments Of his
crime, and to use such instruments as
evidence against him. 1t is always
evidence against him. 1t was
done when the the pistol ...y was IS
Guiteau, and if he remembered rightly
Guiteau's papers had also been seized.
He recited the history of the bomb
throwing in Chicago, and enumerated
articles such as bombs, dynamite, ETC..
which belonged to Spies, Lingg and
others of the Anarchists, and which
had been taken, not from their private
houses, but from the Arbeiter Zeitung
Office, the headquarters of the Anarch-
ist party. He maintained that the
question was not, how did these articles
get before the court, but what did they
prove. and again referred to the case
Of Keys VS.. the people of Illinois,
cited by the Acknowledgement of that
state yesterday. After speaking about
forty minutes Mr.. Grinnen closed, and
General Butler rose and objected tC
the latter part of Mr.. Grinnell's argu-
ment, on the ground that it went out
side OF the printed record, and brought
in extraneous matter to which no refer
ence had before been made. That this
extraneous matter must be popular
with the court, or its introduction
would not be permitted. He and his
associates had been taken by surprise
and he must ask more time in order tC
go into the case fully, and show that
the facts stated by Mr.. Grinnen were
not in the record. If he should bt
wrong he hoped that he would bt
corrected by men who die
not advocate and defend mar
stealing and property stealing
After reviewing the circumstances
of the tragedy in the Haymalket IL
Chicago and the trial of the prisoners
and contending, as Mr.. Tucker did yes
terday, that the petitioners had been
deprived of the privileges and immuni
ties of American citizenship as guaran
teed by the fourteenth amendment
General Butler proceeded to the con
sideration of the special and peculiar
questions raised by the cases OF Fielder
and Spies, who are foreigners. HI
contended that the treaties were thu
supreme law of the land, and tha
these prisoners were entitled by virtue
of these treaties with Germany anC
Great Britain to all rights and privil
eyes of American citizens at the time
such treaties were made. The stat
had no power to try these men by on,
of its own laws which was not the Law
of the land at the time the treatie
were ratified. He did not mean
he said, that foreigner coul'
come into a state and break its law
with impunity and that state could no
tOnch him, but he did mean that tn
state could duly try him IN accordanc
with the law of the land, the Who'll
land, at the time the treaty with thi
| government was made. This, he said
was an important question to ever
| American citizen, because in return TO
| the concessions made by this govern
ment of the treaty with Great Britain
/ the government of that country ha
made similar concession to the Unite
States. Suppose that citizen of til
4 United States should 90 to Ireland an